A logical argument I've never heard argued

The most basic claim of at least most, if not all monotheist belief systems is that the deity that they worship 'always was', thereby avoiding the messy problem of 'who created the creator?'.
Well, if a creator has existed for an infinitely long time in the past (having never been created) should not anything He/She/It has done, such as creating mankind, happened an infinitely long time ago? Or are we to believe a deity existed an infinite amount of time before the idea of creating sentient beings finally occurred to Him/Her/It?

Replies to This Discussion

What was the creator doing 6000 years before IT created the Earth, the universe, and humans? Oh wait IT forgot IT created those beings in Tanzania 150,000 years prior to the creation of Earth etc... It is mindboggling to me how anyone would believe such nosense.

For me it is mind-boggling that they expend so much energy fighting something so fact-filled as evolution, a theory that isn't even inconsistent with their core ideology, except for the fundamentalists who require that all of the massacres and sins of god in the OT be literally interpreted.

It is however endlessly entertaining (except when it crosses over into school and gov't). Ah well...

There is a very fundamental contradiction between evolution and Christianity. Without Adam and Eve the idea of original sin becomes decidedly shakey, and without original sin the whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins crashes and burns. Ironically, most Christians don't realise this, and object to evolution because it undermines humankind's special status as being created in God's image.

According to some propaganda I recently read--and that's a lot more likely to be representative of modern Christian thought, it being what they themselves use to try to rope more people in and all--the sin isn't the same "original sin" stuff that, y'know, is called "original sin". It's a vague, un-detailed sinfulness the origin and nature of which remains ever distant in their explanations. It's just some vague thing like "Man is sinful by nature. Only by accepting Christ can you achieve salvation." Basically, they think of sin like sweat or dead skin cells--your body (or soul, I guess, in this case) just naturally produces it--and they try to sell Jesus et al. as a sort of spiritual shower.

There are entire swaths of Christianity that affirm that a believer only needs--at most--half (the second half) of Bible to "be a christian"--no Adam-and-Eve-originated original sin needed. I agree, naturally, that this explanation is batshit crazy, but, hell, so is the one with "original sin" in it.

The problem is only between dogmatic christians and evolution. The consistently-made objection to evolution by creationists is that it stands in opposition to their sacred scriptures. They see it as being part of a super-global (usually Satan-originated) conspiracy to just be a dick to god by disagreeing with His WordTM.

Although I'm not religious (100% non-theist, I promise), I need to argue this simply on logical terms. Although the concept of infinity is a tricky one, I feel as though you're inferring that infinity is ultimately impotent, which to me seems to be nearly opposite of what infinity's potential must be.

If an infinite agent (a deity, universe, multiverse, computer simulation, whatever) were to exist that gave rise to life, it would have to happen at some time. Assuming such an agent did give rise to us, we simply live in that time.

An interesting side note: As far as I know, modern science tells us that although this universe had a definite beginning, it will not have an end (as we live in an open universe).

I read a 'Kalam Cosmological Argument for Atheism', written by Quentin Smith (you can read it online).
In one section, he argues that at the point t=0, every law would break down (ex. 5 divided by 0 is impossible). Therefore, the entirety of time does not include the asymptote t=0: (0,oo)

I've thought of this except I was thinking more along the lines of perfection instead of infinity. If god is perfect than any flaw would make him lose his perfection. The only way for a god to be perfect is for him to know everything. Except you can't know that you know everything because what you don't know is unknown.

Another way of putting it is asking if god knows every number of pie. Like, is god like a sphere?
A guess it leans more towards omniscience than omniperfection but they drift into the same camp anyways.

I doubt any theist really looks into how flawed those terms are for describing thier god.

There may be a category confusion here. Christians are conflating two concepts of time, one being time as a total unit, the other being time as a set of infinite discreet units. Thus, "always was" becomes the god who "sees" all time at once, essentially Boethius's god who sees all, knows all, and is not responsible for anything bad happening even though he created all the circumstances that made the bad things and knew the bad things would happen because he already saw them. This is also the "timeless god" of modern theology, especially William Lane Craig, who has god exist throughout time, but also create time, and then insert himself into time, thus becoming "always was" number two. This number two version of discreet units corresponds to common understanding of time, suggesting an infinitely long clock. However, modern physics tells us it is a false idea of time. Nevertheless, theologians are constantly switching from one idea of "always was" to the other, never noting the equivocation.

I always try to dumb it down to the simplest terms when I have a Christian bring up creationism. If God can be infinite, why can't the universe be infinite? If you can simply and easily accept God doesn't need a creator, why do you? Him being infinitely times more complicated, and more needing an explanation of his origins, why is it so easy for them to dismiss this as non important.

The whole concept of infinite time before the start of the universe is flawed as proved by Einstein. He discovered that time is connected to space as a single concept which he called Space Time. So before the start of the universe, there was no space and therefore by default, no time. Difficult to get your head around because we as humans live and think in a linear fashion to the extent that to try and imagine 'No Time' is almost impossible.

So if there was no time before the beginning of the Universe, then any creator that exists in time (infinite or otherwise) would have to have instantly appeared to create the universe at the exact moment that the universe (space time) began. This obviously does not make any sense at all because if the creator appeared or 'began' at a specific point in time (namely the very first instant), who or what instigated the 'beginning' of the creator? Who created the creator?

I hate to be cynical, but in any argument where you would have to use a logical argument such as this you are talking with someone who could never accept it. You can't have a debate with people like this, only arguments since you are coming from two different approaches at understanding the universe: your approach is one of evidence, understanding, and interpretation; their approach is one of feeling. Without a major upheaval, they can never accept what you are saying because it FEELS wrong. You understand that it doesn't matter how things feel, there are facts and they can't change due to one's gut. So a debate is impossible and I personally am tired of arguments. You've already won the argument, but it's just going to end with a "let's agree to disagree" unless your opponent can learn critical thinking.